chlamor
12-30-2007, 08:06 PM
I see lots of complaining on this board about what is wrong with America and many posters to me seem to be taking the view that this government is not worth fixing and that none of the candidates are worth voting for. Every candidate is objectionable for some good and valid reason and to vote only means to perpetuate the status quo. I happen to disagree with the Utopian viewpoint that this government is not worth fixing (what kind of Utopia they would replace it with I haven't figured out). I happen to also think major progressive changes could be made by (ironically) re-establishing a few simple constitutional ideas our founding fathers set up, but which we have abandoned.
1. Congress must re-acquire its war making powers. Since WWII Congress has ceded its war-making authority to the President. The founding fathers well understood that the power to make war was vested in the king. They wanted this to change. They no longer wanted the power to make war in the hands of a single person but instead wanted it in the hands of a deliberative body. When Congress re-asserts its war making authority, wars based upon pretext and/or the whim and deceit of the executive branch will be much less likely. This of course will require Congress to grow a spine and a Congress which is not bought and paid for by the ruling class/corporations which profit hugely from the racket of war.
2. The founding fathers had a solution to a Congress which was bought and paid for by the ruling elite/corporations. But in 1913, the people were conned into changing the constitution. 1913 is a year of American infamy. Three things happened that set us on the road to empire: the amendment of the constitution to permit income tax (which possibly was never properly ratified by the requisite number of states), the creation of the federal reserve, and the amendment of the constitution to permit direct election of senators by the people. While we hear much complaining about the first two, we seldom hear much about the effects of the third.
Prior to 1913, senators were chosen by the legislatures of the states. It seemed like a good democratic idea to have the people vote directly for their senators and so it passed (17th Amendment). But its effects have brought us the bought and paid for Congress we now all enjoy. The founding fathers thought it would be a good idea to have the governments of the states being represented in Congress. After the passage of this amendment, the state governments had no representatives in Congress. Think about that for a second. The state governments have no representatives in Congress. This was supposed to be a government of "united" states. But the states themselves have no representation in this government. With a single amendment, a vast amount of power was sucked into Washington which had before been disbursed among the states. Today, the states themselves are virtually powerless on the national level. Now all the states can do is set up a governor's lobby, a lobby that has no legal authority, to try to get measures passed that will help state government. But this lobby has no legal power, at best it is advisory. But few if any congressmen listen.
But perhaps even more importantly, since the state governments no longer select the senators, the senate has become a seat bought and paid for by the financially powerful and it is getting worse every year. It now cost as much to run for some senate seats as it used to cost to run for President. Before 1913, a senator usually had to pay his dues in the state legislature before he had a prayer of winning a senate seat. And he usually had to be a statesman. No more.
As undemocratic as it might sound, I think we need to get back to having the state governments elect the senate with a clear constitutional amendment setting forth how the legislatures are to do it. This would do much to put people in office who might have more spine and might be beholden to their legislatures instead of the corporations who finance their campaigns. Campaign finance reform sure has not worked and probably never will. Maybe if we returned to choosing senators the way the founding fathers intended, Congress might be more inclined to take their war-making power back and some of the other powers they have ceded to the executive. It would also make state elections far more important if voters knew their legislature would be picking the state senator.
3. The government needs to print its own money. Since 1913, printing money has been the exclusive right of the Fed. In principle, I don't have a problem with the private sector having the right to print its own money. If a supermarket wants to issue a coupon saying that the coupon will get the bearer or presenter of the coupon, a turkey, a ham and rump roast, the private sector should be able to do that. But the government can't do the equivalent. At least not that I know of. I have yet to see a government coupon that says the coupon takes $1000 off the bearer's (or owner's, or presenter's) income taxes.
I don't like this power to print money being exclusively in the hands of the private sector. When the Fed prints money, it essentially loans the money to the federal government (you and me) and the government (us) then has to pay interest on it. If the government issued coupons worth $1000 off your federal tax bill, there would be no interest the government (you and I) would have to pay anybody. Maybe some economists can weigh in on this.
In my mind at least, these are three things that the founding fathers set up as part of our government, the loss of which has produced catastrophic results. So it would seem like to me that we should support candidates who are willing to make these fundamental changes. That will take voting to put them in.
OK. Flame away.
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... sg_id=8416 (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=196&topic_id=8416&mesg_id=8416)
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m246/writerchickamr/Funny_SuperTroops_leave.jpg
1. Congress must re-acquire its war making powers. Since WWII Congress has ceded its war-making authority to the President. The founding fathers well understood that the power to make war was vested in the king. They wanted this to change. They no longer wanted the power to make war in the hands of a single person but instead wanted it in the hands of a deliberative body. When Congress re-asserts its war making authority, wars based upon pretext and/or the whim and deceit of the executive branch will be much less likely. This of course will require Congress to grow a spine and a Congress which is not bought and paid for by the ruling class/corporations which profit hugely from the racket of war.
2. The founding fathers had a solution to a Congress which was bought and paid for by the ruling elite/corporations. But in 1913, the people were conned into changing the constitution. 1913 is a year of American infamy. Three things happened that set us on the road to empire: the amendment of the constitution to permit income tax (which possibly was never properly ratified by the requisite number of states), the creation of the federal reserve, and the amendment of the constitution to permit direct election of senators by the people. While we hear much complaining about the first two, we seldom hear much about the effects of the third.
Prior to 1913, senators were chosen by the legislatures of the states. It seemed like a good democratic idea to have the people vote directly for their senators and so it passed (17th Amendment). But its effects have brought us the bought and paid for Congress we now all enjoy. The founding fathers thought it would be a good idea to have the governments of the states being represented in Congress. After the passage of this amendment, the state governments had no representatives in Congress. Think about that for a second. The state governments have no representatives in Congress. This was supposed to be a government of "united" states. But the states themselves have no representation in this government. With a single amendment, a vast amount of power was sucked into Washington which had before been disbursed among the states. Today, the states themselves are virtually powerless on the national level. Now all the states can do is set up a governor's lobby, a lobby that has no legal authority, to try to get measures passed that will help state government. But this lobby has no legal power, at best it is advisory. But few if any congressmen listen.
But perhaps even more importantly, since the state governments no longer select the senators, the senate has become a seat bought and paid for by the financially powerful and it is getting worse every year. It now cost as much to run for some senate seats as it used to cost to run for President. Before 1913, a senator usually had to pay his dues in the state legislature before he had a prayer of winning a senate seat. And he usually had to be a statesman. No more.
As undemocratic as it might sound, I think we need to get back to having the state governments elect the senate with a clear constitutional amendment setting forth how the legislatures are to do it. This would do much to put people in office who might have more spine and might be beholden to their legislatures instead of the corporations who finance their campaigns. Campaign finance reform sure has not worked and probably never will. Maybe if we returned to choosing senators the way the founding fathers intended, Congress might be more inclined to take their war-making power back and some of the other powers they have ceded to the executive. It would also make state elections far more important if voters knew their legislature would be picking the state senator.
3. The government needs to print its own money. Since 1913, printing money has been the exclusive right of the Fed. In principle, I don't have a problem with the private sector having the right to print its own money. If a supermarket wants to issue a coupon saying that the coupon will get the bearer or presenter of the coupon, a turkey, a ham and rump roast, the private sector should be able to do that. But the government can't do the equivalent. At least not that I know of. I have yet to see a government coupon that says the coupon takes $1000 off the bearer's (or owner's, or presenter's) income taxes.
I don't like this power to print money being exclusively in the hands of the private sector. When the Fed prints money, it essentially loans the money to the federal government (you and me) and the government (us) then has to pay interest on it. If the government issued coupons worth $1000 off your federal tax bill, there would be no interest the government (you and I) would have to pay anybody. Maybe some economists can weigh in on this.
In my mind at least, these are three things that the founding fathers set up as part of our government, the loss of which has produced catastrophic results. So it would seem like to me that we should support candidates who are willing to make these fundamental changes. That will take voting to put them in.
OK. Flame away.
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... sg_id=8416 (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=196&topic_id=8416&mesg_id=8416)
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m246/writerchickamr/Funny_SuperTroops_leave.jpg